Contraversal!?!

[mcdenife]

Mikey_s, yes it was an excellent and very informative read. The issue is close to my heart but I have been disheartened by the fact that it has been hijacked by people/groups with their own agenda. So much so that the real issues themselves have become obscured and there is now a real possibility that more damaged will be done from our actions to clean/save the environment as through inactivity.

[Mikey_s]

Mike thinks to himself... mc(Michael Crichton)denife???

Couldn't agree more mcdenife, that's why it's important to have facts! real ones!!

[mcdenife]

oh you 're good. but unfortunately not. mc is for Mack, (I am a fan of Satch'mo)

[bhall]

I don't think there's much doubt in the scientific community about the cause of global warming, Mike. That the question is still being asked in any way is very troubling to me. But maybe since you work for an oil company, I shouldn't be surprised, as their information always seems to leave the question up in the air.

I don't mean for that to come off as an "attack," by the way; it's just more of an assessment of source.

Granted, concentrations of atmospheric CO2 remain small in relative terms, they've nearly doubled in proportion since the beginning of the industrial revolution (that always seems to get left out). And that doubling has been massively out of step with natural ebb and flow of CO2 levels. That's a scientific fact; one that begins the domino effect of actions too many to mention that's now benignly called "climate change."

I think the devastation from global warming is on its way, no matter what we do to correct it. It's simply gone on for too long. Even if there was a chance to fix it, it won't happen because there are too many people who continue to ask the question, leading to the political inaction you referred to. But in 10-15 years, when we're looking out on what used to be an awe-inspiring planet, we should at least have the courage to admit that it's mankind alone who destroyed it.

[Mikey_s]

bhallg2k,

I don't think there's much doubt in the scientific community about the cause of global warming

I would, respectfully, beg to differ. I think there is considerable disagreement, even at the most basic level of whether it is actually happening, notwithstanding the fact that it has evidently occurred in the past and is likely to occur again in the future. and I would repeat my assertion that it does seem implausible that the global temperature can be influenced in such a pronouced way by such a minor change in atmosphere composition.

I would not argue that sucking carbon out of the ground and pumping it into the atmos is a good thing, but I would also challenge those who blame the oil companies to take a little look closer to home - of course I recognise that working for an oil company my position in the debate is rather weak, but...

I don't take your comments as an attack - we're not all baddies in the oil business; personally I make a point of driving a fuel efficient vehicle (approx 6l/100km = approx 50mpg), I cycle, or walk to work, recycle as much as possible and follow my wife around switching off lights in empty rooms

Energy efficiency is (or should be) a personal responsibility.

Whatever happens, it's hapened before (all the carbon was in the atmos once before!) which is not to say that I condone returning to those times, but don't just blame the oil companies - at the risk of sounding like a drug dealer, they only supply the demand!

[mcdenife]

bhallg2k wrote:

I don't think there's much doubt in the scientific community about the cause of global warming, Mike. That the question is still being asked in any way is very troubling to me. But maybe since you work for an oil company, I shouldn't be surprised, as their information always seems to leave the question up in the air.

Well I dont work in the oil/energy industry but I know that not only is there much doubt regarding the cause, they simply dont know and that is the truth. The environment and (as Mikey_s said) Energy efficiency is (or should be) a personal responsibility for all of us regardless of the facts. That is a given.
What we are given is: "removing a mosquitoes wings makes them deaf ". What the "interested parties" dont tell you is that the actual experiment by the scientists was: Pull wings off mosquito, shout Fly at mosquito.
Check the data, check the facts (its not restricted) and draw your own conclusions.

[bhall]

With all due respect, any debate that's going on as to whether or not global warming is occurring is done between those who know and those who have their heads in the sand. That's really the only way I know how to put it.

And I think we're given more than a "mosquito test" to know that it's indeed happening, Mack.

If we know that atmospheric CO2 causes temperatures to rise, which we do, and we know that levels of CO2 have doubled beyond the normal rise and fall of such gases, again we do, then we must know that the trigger has been pulled for global warming to occur.

That's not to say that increased CO2 levels are the only culprit, Mike; they aren't. Nor is it just that fuel burning is the only cause for increased CO2. A good example of that is deforestation.

It's just that the small changes in temperature relating to CO2 buildup cause other changes such as, and not limited to: melting of the permafrost in Siberia, releasing methane which is another so-called "greenhouse gas;" thawing of arctic ice and mountain glaciers, which alters and/or interrupts weather-directing ocean currents; larger and more long-lasting holes in the ozone layer resulting in increased absorption of solar radiation. The list goes on and on, and they all compound one another, making the temperature higher and higher. We've begun a vicious cycle which I fear can't be stopped.

Again, it hearkens back to what we know about CO2 levels for the past 600,000-700,000 years; if we know, through ice testing, that CO2 levels are now higher than they've been during that period by as much as 100%, and we know those gases raise temperatures...well, I just don't think one needs to be a rocket surgeon to make the connection.

[Ted68]

[mcdenife]

bhallg2k wrote:

With all due respect, any debate that's going on as to whether or not global warming is occurring is done between those who know and those who have their heads in the sand. That's really the only way I know how to put it.

Agreed. However, that there is global warming is not the debate. That is beyond doubt and I dont think anybody has their heads in the sand regarding this. The debate is about the causes of it.

And I think we're given more than a "mosquito test" to know that it's indeed happening, Mack.

There "mosquito test" analogy refered to the causes of global warming rather than wether or not there is global warming. The 2 are seperate issues and a cause of great public confusion.

If we know that atmospheric CO2 causes temperatures to rise, which we do, and we know that levels of CO2 have doubled beyond the normal rise and fall of such gases, again we do, then we must know that the trigger has been pulled for global warming to occur.

Precisely the point. We DONT know atmospheric CO2 causes temperatures to rise. The data does not support this...if you disagree, I am sure you can check/analyze/correlate the data yourself between CO2 and average global temps at least since the "industrial revolution". You might want to also to check the global trend in temp, since records began.

With regards to CO2 levels having doubled and is therefore the trigger, without supporting data, see "mosquito test".

That's not to say that increased CO2 levels are the only culprit, Mike; they aren't. Nor is it just that fuel burning is the only cause for increased CO2. A good example of that is deforestation.

Agreed. But that should read: we simply dont know what/who/where/how the culprits are (I should add the "why" to that). Having said, I also agree with the fact that CO2 emission should be cut and deforestation should be stopped. if for no other reason than to at least clean up the environment, (in both cases) etc etc.

As someone said. If global warming is man made then we need to investigate the what/why and stop the trend and if possible, reverse it.
If part of some natural cycle, stopping or reversing could have consequences beyond anything we can possibly imagine. In such a case would it not be irresponsible to act on something we have absolutely no understanding of?

[Tp]

(Just found this, wanted to add my view)

So you want to spend Billions of dollars on alternate fuels to 'stop' global warming? Well there's a problem.......

Global Warming is inevitable, it cannot be stopped, (OK man is accelerating the process, but we still would have to face the consequences of global warming some day no matter how much we reduce our emissions)

So if we do spend a substantial amount on alternate fuels (or even more efficient ways of producing energy) we're still going to have the melted ice caps etc etc....

So that begs the question, whats the point? Why don't we just spend the money and time and prepare for the consequences now before its too late? Deal with the fact that we're running out of fossil fuels later (which reminds me, we have 1292.5 billion barrels remaining, with some saying 2.5 times that may be recoverable) and prevent millions of deaths due to the unpredictable weather conditions (i.e. heat waves, city-destroying-floods, hurricanes, tornadoes........)

[Giancarlo]

Here's some good global warming information:

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm

Here's a short quote from the 1st article:

According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. "As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age," remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, "When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years."

In short, if earth is warming - the cause is not man-made. To say that pollution is the cause is a fallacious arguement put forth to further political careers and secure gov. project funding. Here's a graph that uses the same logic as used by enviornmental activists:



If you don't understand what I'm presenting, here's some 'Correlation does not imply causation' tech:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlatio ... _causation

Thus, the 'Global Warming' debate is rooted in false logic. Science says one thing and the political blow-hards say another.

Am I worried about global warming? Nope. I made up my mind based on mathmatical facts, not what Al Gore spews from his mouth.

[flynfrog]

Most geoligiest feel that global warming is natural.

We are on the tail end of the tail end of an ice age so the earth is once agin warming up. To simply say that C02 is the only cause is a little narow minded there are billions of factors that come into play. Sun cycles (the sun is hotter now than 100 years ago) what about C02 from volcanoes the orignal global warmer

i know every one would love to put the oil companies on a stick to get relected but gimme a break

you are trying to take 300 years of weather data and apply it to millions of years of history

[wazojugs]

Most geoligiest feel that global warming is natural.

We are on the tail end of the tail end of an ice age so the earth is once agin warming up. To simply say that C02 is the only cause is a little narow minded there are billions of factors that come into play. Sun cycles (the sun is hotter now than 100 years ago) what about C02 from volcanoes the orignal global warmer

i know every one would love to put the oil companies on a stick to get relected but gimme a break

you are trying to take 300 years of weather data and apply it to millions of years of history

nice point

[G-Rock]

Hey, even George W Bush is giving in to the fact that global warming is man made, climate changes biggest skeptic.

The earth is based on balance and I think that's what scientists/governments should concentrate on.

If you are pulling carbon out of storage, burning it and emitting CO2 into the air then somewhere along the line you should ensure that it gets absorbed...whether there is evidence that causes climate change or not. Who knows, maybe higher CO2 could cause other, even bigger problems in the future ( I once heard that it's making the oceans more acidic)

If we had enough carbon sinks (ie forests, grasslands etc) theoretically we could burn as much oil as we want. If you fly over any arable country in the world you can see that that is a huge barrier. Most forests have been cleared and burned and this isn't something new. North America was as significant a carbon sink as the South American rainforests are now. Now all that grows on that land is some wheat and corn which pales in comparison to the forests that once grew there.

So all of the CO2 has to go somewhere. How could anyone disagree with the possibility that it could cause negative affects to the earth.

Also one more thing. Don't let oil companies off the hook just yet. They are the ones who lobbied governments to lower fuel consumption standards, to reduce pollution controls and anything that would affect the consumption of oil.

[Ciro Pabón]

Mac The Knife: is a character from the Three Pennies Opera (as mcdenife probably knows, of course, this is for the rest of us). The lyrics were composed by Bertolt Bretcht (music by some other german guy). The song of the play was sung by Louis Armstrong, but he has the same relation with the character as Madonna with Evita. The song is equally associated sometimes with the great Bobby Darin (if you like Satchmo's version, you'll love Darin's).



Global warming and CO2 links proved "beyond reasonable doubt": the reason why global warming is associated with CO2 emissions is because most models of climate that take in account the reflectivity of the atmosphere caused by changes in CO2, coincide with the measures.

The consensus of scientists on the correlation between global warming and CO2 emissions has, itself, been investigated.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... /5702/1686

This study concluded that of the 928 articles in the ISI database of peer reviewed articles, not a single one accepted any other hypothesis.

Of course, the science can be wrong (this is what science is about: always in doubt) but pleeze.... the scientists are surprisingly in agreement. The only "doubts" are in the newspapers, not the science magazines with peer review. I ask Mikey_s, a scientist, to check the link I give and tell us if the quality of the peer review is up to his standards (I think he'll give thumbs up on this one, btw).

Pirates vs Global Warming: the pirates vs global warming diagram was devised by Bobby Henderson, creator (or prophet... ) of the Spaghetti Monster in his original letter to the Kansas Board of Education.

How this letter can be used as an argument against global warming, escapes me. It was devised to show (as Giancarlo correctly points out) that correlation does not mean causation unless you have a theory. A model that predicts real outcomes with good precission IS a theory.

The whole point of the Pirates-vs-Global-Warming graphic, as I see it, is that if you have a "theory" that is un-reviewable, that cannot be argued against (the typical "because I told you so"), then you have no theory at all. RAmen.

Mr. Henderson letter was intended to mock creationists: using his letter to support a case against global warming/CO2 theory is like using Betty Friedman words to argue for burkas.

You can't do nothin' about global warmin': yeah, sure, if you agree that tobacco companies are not responsible for lung cancer health costs... I'm sure that american lawyers will devise a way, if I know something about them.

Mr. Corbyn resumé

Mr. Piers Corbyn alleges he can predict weather 8 months in advance (how's that for "consensus of the scientific community"? ) and admits he "does his calculations by hand" to Wired Magazine, in a positive article on him that I found trying to understand his position.

"He has been criticized for making unfounded claims about the power of his predictions, even after they turned out to be inaccurate", according to SourceWatch, (seems a good place to watch your sources, Principessa ).